A few days ago, there were reports that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) had been asked about her legacy. According to the reports, a person asked Tsai that if former president Lee Teng-hui’s (李登輝) legacy was the establishment of democracy, what she hoped Taiwan would remember her for. Her immediate response was: “The economy.”
Lee’s contribution to Taiwan was to transform it into a democracy from within the authoritarian framework established by Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國). “Democracy” was not a legacy Lee chose for himself, but it followed him like a shadow.
Freezing the provincial government, transferring the powers of the National Assembly to the legislature and introducing direct presidential elections through constitutional reform were tactically and strategically necessary, and provided the goal and the means required for a democratic transformation. This is why democracy became his legacy.
A look at the transition from authoritarianism to democracy shows that Lee’s “democracy” encompassed values and direction, which are necessary to build an enduring legacy.
By comparison, Tsai’s answer of “the economy” might contain profound truths, but it requires more practical evidence.
“Economy” is not an achievement in itself, it is just a constant presence in a permanent cycle of growth and decline.
For the general public, “the economy” and “becoming rich” are broad concepts. When business and industry are doing well in times of prosperity, that is an expression of how the economy creates wealth, and it is something that the government shows off in elections.
However, it is insufficient to build a legacy.
Talking about economic performance in isolation requires several definite conditions. Tsai must concretely describe how to bring biotechnological development to a certain level, how to integrate the defense industry with the private sector, how to use automation to upgrade Taiwanese industries.
She must make solid suggestions for how a 35-hour work week could be implemented for all Taiwanese or how to help them reach a certain income level.
Taking a global view, the world has entered the post-globalization era: International exchanges are no longer focused on traditional trade, the world’s factory is slowly disappearing, international capital is no longer invested in production using cheap labor, the manufacturing industry is being repatriated, industrial clusters are becoming regionalized, and new energy sources and autonomous systems are taking root.
How the Taiwanese economy should handle these global structural changes, what role Taiwan can play in them and which direction industrial transformation should take are strategic economic concerns. Tsai is engaged in economic restructuring, but the strategic and tactical outlines still have not been clearly laid out.
Legacy is conferred by historians and Tsai must understand that her legacy will only be plainly visible a hundred years from now.
In addition to economic performance, something of deeper significance is also required, something that allows Taiwan to elevate its international status, cultivate the civic awareness present in local identity and thoroughly eliminate the “never-changing Chinese value system” (醬缸文化, literally “soy sauce jar culture”) — this is the kind of strategic thinking that lays the foundation for a lasting legacy.
Joshua Tin is an economist.
Translated by Perry Svensson
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent